Wikipedia:Peer review/Operation Crossroads/archive1

Operation Crossroads
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because…

I think this article has progressed to the point it's better then a B-class article. It's well sourced, well illustrated (with a featured picture) and plenty of content. I think it's well on the way to being a featured article, and would like to know what additional work needs done.

Thanks, — raeky ( talk 00:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth
I found this to be most interesting, well-written, apparently comprehensive, and well-illustrated. It's greatest weakness may be its lack of sourcing in places and its tendency to inject explanations that may be true but appear to come from the general knowledge of the subject by Wikipedia editor(s) rather than verifiable sources. Wikipedia editors are not reliable sources. I did a close reading down to the "Radiation" section, and I noted several recurring small problems such as the lack of metric conversions in many places, the lack of non-breaking spaces here and there, and a few unexplained technical terms that could be linked or briefly explained for the general reader. Mainly, though, this looks very good, and you should be able to get it to FA quality with more work.

General
 * Images need alt text to pass FAC reviews. See WP:ALT for details and examples.

Lead
 * MOS:INTRO says in part, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." - The existing lead comes pretty close but doesn't mention "Bikini after Crossroads" or "Legacy" and might be a bit more inclusive.


 * Per WP:MOSNUM, dates should no longer be autoformatted.

Preparation
 * "The atoll remains unpopulated." - It would be good to include here "as of 2009" so that the reader can tell whether the information is up-to-date.

Ships
 * "brought 200 pigs, 60 guinea pigs, 204 goats, 5000 rats, 200 mice" - WP:NBSP says in part, "Wikipedia recommends the use of a non-breaking space (also known as a hard space) when necessary to prevent the end-of-line displacement of elements that would be awkward at the beginning of a new line... " - Subject to interpretation, this might include constructions like 200 pigs. Just to be safe, I often add nbsps to combination like these.
 * "containing insects to be studied for genetic effects by the National Cancer Institute" - Wikilink National Cancer Institute?

Cameras
 * "and 1,500,000 feet of motion picture film" - Metric conversion?

Nicknames
 * "the time of detonation for each test was announced as "H" or "How" hour;[11] in the official JTF-1 history, the term "M" or "Mike" hour is used instead" - It would be interesting to know why "M" is used. "H" comes from "hour" presumably, but what does "M" hour derive from, if anything?
 * It's a good rule of thumb to provide at least one source for each paragraph as well as sources for direct quotes, sets of statistics, and any claims that might reasonably be questioned. Two of the paragraphs in this section are unsourced. Quite a few others are unsourced elsewhere in the article, including some with statistics and technical analyses that are not common knowledge and can probably be sourced.
 * "starting in 1946, of bikini as the name of for woman's two-piece bathing suit" - "a woman's"? Or "for women's two-piece bathing suits"? Or "the name of two-piece bathing suits for women"?

Test Able - July 1
 * "painted red, with white gun barrels and gunwales" - Wikilink gunwales?
 * "inside a firestorm over two miles wide." - Metric conversion?
 * "But water doesn't burn, and warships, other than aircraft carriers, are extremely resistant to blast and fire." - Probably true, but this reads like an interpretation by the Wikipedia editor. That, in turn, calls attention to the fact that most of the material in this section is unsourced.

Radiation
 * "Altogether, 35% of the animals died as a direct result of blast" - Since you use "percent" earlier in the paragraph, this should be "percent" for consistency. Ditto for similar instances. The symbol, %, is also an option in some circumstances but probably not here.
 * "Since rats made up 86% of the total, obviously not all of them survived." - "Obviously" is an editorial comment, and the rest of the sentence seems to refer to a calculation made by the Wikipedia editor. Shorten to "Not all of them survived" or give the number of survivors?
 * "Although the Able bomb missed its target, Nevada, by nearly half a mile," - Metric conversion?
 * "Had the Nevada been fully manned, she would likely have become a floating coffin, dead in the water for lack of a live crew." - It seems likely, but is this Wikipedia's interpretation, or can it be backed up by a reliable source?

Test Baker - July 25
 * "Wilson cloud" appears here and in the lead photo. Should it be linked (perhaps to Wilson cloud chamber or briefly explained?
 * "any ships that remained afloat within 1,000 yards" - Metric conversion? Ditto for other unconverted imperial expressions in the article.
 * Citation 17 seems to be floating under the table on my computer screen.
 * "where she capsized in shallow water on 22 December 1946" - Dates are no longer autoformatted.

Sequence of blast events
 * "The Able shot also produced a Wilson cloud, but heat from the fireball dried it out more quickly." - The Manual of Style generally advises against extremely short paragraphs such as this one. Two possible solutions are to expand or to merge. With this one, I'd suggest merging with the paragraph above.

References
 * Page ranges take en dashes rather than hyphens.
 * A few of the references such as Citation 49 are malformed in that the title is normally linked, and the bare url is invisible.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article about a subject of your own choosing. I found this one in the PR backlog. Finetooth (talk) 17:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)